What matters are the stats collected from shooting results and autopsy's performed.

Pat

Autopsies only tell part of a much bigger story. They are useless in terms of telling anyone if a BG was incapacitated in 30 seconds or 5 seconds. Even the cops on the scene can't always tell you that, as they commonly have no idea how many rounds they fired among other things they DON'T REMEMBER or DON'T REMEMBER ACCURATELY.

Also, don't know what autopsies you're refering to, but interestingly enough, many of us who have examined animals we've shot with 9mm and 357SIG, clearly have seen more damage done by the 357SIG, not to mention quicker incapacitation times.

Autopsies only tell part of a much bigger story. They are useless in terms of telling anyone if a BG was incapacitated in 30 seconds or 5 seconds. Even the cops on the scene can't always tell you that, as they commonly have no idea how many rounds they fired among other things they DON'T REMEMBER or DON'T REMEMBER ACCURATELY.

Also, don't know what autopsies you're refering to, but interestingly enough, many of us who have examined animals we've shot with 9mm and 357SIG, clearly have seen more damage done by the 357SIG, not to mention quicker incapacitation times.

Craig

Frankly the hunting situations you speak of using the 9mm and 357 sig are suspect from the start. For starters all of you supposedly doing this are big bore fans so there is researcher bias. Then there is the issue of the animals shot themselves. Was each one shot in the exact same manner in the same place, was each animal the same size. Were they spooked prior to being shot. Etc. Frankly such sophomoric tests are useless and un-repeatable. I have shot 2 bear with 12 gauge slugs. The bears did not go down as fast as I would have wanted them to. Does that mean the 12 gauge slug is a poor stopper? There are way too many variables in a hunting situation to make it valid research.

Actually Craig a great many FBI agents still carry 9mm's by choice. Not all carry Glock 22's and 23's.

And that proves what exactly, assuming you even have a clue what you're talking about??? Besides that, of whatever one's do, you certainly don't know their reasoning which in this case would be key.

Quote:

I would much rather carry a Sig 9mm that is reliable than a Glock 40 that historically are not.

Glock 40s are extremely reliable. It is foolish to think otherwise.

Quote:

As to my original comments that you took out of context.

I didn't take anything you said out of context that mattered if it was taken out of context or not. Besides that your posts are and will be posted for all time, and anyone who wishes to see if I left anything pertinent out can see for themselves.

Quote:

You do get more tissue damage as bore size goes up however you also get more recoil.

That is not always true. About anyone who participates in CC and tell you that with examples. You're being dishonest as a hole in the context you speak.

Quote:

Since we are not shooting single shot pistols you can not simple take tissue destruction by itself. Say your shooting a 10mm with full house loads and you have 1 seconds to fire you may get 2 to 3 accurate rounds off at close range. With the 9mm at the same range you will get more like 4 to 6 rounds.

BS. The difference is less they you make it out to be. With my G29 and DT 155gr Gold Dots @ 1400fps, 3 accurate shots is the norm in a second for me. With the 9mm and the lowest recoiling loads available, most people won't do better than 4 in a second, accurately. Now throw some 9mm +P and +P+ into the equation. You get the picture.

Quote:

More bullets in the same amount of time means more tissue damage which means better stopping power.

So you're claiming 9mm = same wound damage per shot as 10mm??? That's seriously laughable!!! Sorry, but you're going to have to attempt to pull the wool over someone elses eyes as I've seen the differences. As plenty of others on GT have also noted.

Quote:

Frankly I don't really much care what the FBI says on the subject of stopping power. I don't take advice on selecting handguns and calibers from attorneys and accountants with badges. If I want advice on such matters I will turn to people who study shootings and wound ballistics like Dr. Roberts and Dr. Fackler.

Pat

You mean you posted the link by Urey Patrick because you don't care? Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot! At what point are you finally going to wake up to reality?

Frankly the hunting situations you speak of using the 9mm and 357 sig are suspect from the start. For starters all of you supposedly doing this are big bore fans so there is researcher bias. Then there is the issue of the animals shot themselves. Was each one shot in the exact same manner in the same place, was each animal the same size. Were they spooked prior to being shot. Etc. Frankly such sophomoric tests are useless and un-repeatable. I have shot 2 bear with 12 gauge slugs. The bears did not go down as fast as I would have wanted them to. Does that mean the 12 gauge slug is a poor stopper? There are way too many variables in a hunting situation to make it valid research.

Pat

How is a big bore fan interested in carrying 357SIG? Question; Do you ever think about what you type before you post it to the thread? You'ld have a hard time arguing so! I can't figure why you think you still have something to say when it's clear you need to go back to the drawing board. Tell me; Is ignorance bliss?

And that proves what exactly, assuming you even have a clue what you're talking about??? Besides that, of whatever one's do, you certainly don't know their reasoning which in this case would be key.

Glock 40s are extremely reliable. It is foolish to think otherwise.

I didn't take anything you said out of context that mattered if it was taken out of context or not. Besides that your posts are and will be posted for all time, and anyone who wishes to see if I left anything pertinent out can see for themselves.

That is not always true. About anyone who participates in CC and tell you that with examples. You're being dishonest as a hole in the context you speak.

BS. The difference is less they you make it out to be. With my G29 and DT 155gr Gold Dots @ 1400fps, 3 accurate shots is the norm in a second for me. With the 9mm and the lowest recoiling loads available, most people won't do better than 4 in a second, accurately. Now throw some 9mm +P and +P+ into the equation. You get the picture.

So you're claiming 9mm = same wound damage per shot as 10mm??? That's seriously laughable!!! Sorry, but you're going to have to attempt to pull the wool over someone elses eyes as I've seen the differences. As plenty of others on GT have also noted.

You mean you posted the link by Urey Patrick because you don't care? Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot! At what point are you finally going to wake up to reality?

Craig pull your head out of your rear. I never said the 9mm does the same damage per shot as the 10mm. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension. Second the Glock 40 is a dog of a handgun that has had nurmerous problems. The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant. I never shot myself in the foot. Your the one who used an FBI agents word from an article as he was a wound ballistics expert and he is not.

Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.
Pat

Craig pull your head out of your rear. I never said the 9mm does the same damage per shot as the 10mm. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension. Second the Glock 40 is a dog of a handgun that has had nurmerous problems. The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant. I never shot myself in the foot. Your the one who used an FBI agents word from an article as he was a wound ballistics expert and he is not.

Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.
Pat

Now now Pat, remember, not only did I quote what you posted, any of us can also go back and read your original post where you did suggest 9mm does the same damage per shot (give or take a shot) as the 10mm.

No, 40 Glocks don't have issues. You may want to go back and read that last sentence a few more times.

You're the one who didn't think Urey Patrick could have known the truth. Does the truth hurt? Be honest.

Craig pull your head out of your rear. I never said the 9mm does the same damage per shot as the 10mm. Go back to school and get some reading comprehension. Second the Glock 40 is a dog of a handgun that has had nurmerous problems. The fact that you don't know this means your ignorant. I never shot myself in the foot. Your the one who used an FBI agents word from an article as he was a wound ballistics expert and he is not.

Frankly I am done arguing with someone as dense as you are. Welcome to ignore.
Pat

That right there is hill(freakin)arious! Your superiors must close the door and giggle like schoolgirl's when they read your reports.

"the Glock 40 is a dog of a weapon" - Alaskapoopoo

Thank you for your knowledgeable insight concerning this matter. I will go and sell all my Glock 40's of which I have 10's of thousands of round through with not a single failure in recent history that I can remember.

Wow. I was here yesterday, and I return today to see that a whole lotta something hit the fan. Wow.

Fact of the matter is, as it appears to me, is that a lot of facts have been tossed around, with some citations, on the 357SIG side, and very little on the non side. This is what kills me about these discussions.

I posted some papers from a physics peer-review website that got no comment from Alaskapopo. I would like to see him pick apart these papers. Using scientific method they found that the 357SIG has potential over the 9mm. The article on evaluating wound characteristics in deer comes with pictures of the wound from a .40SW, along with numbers for 9mm and 357SIG.

As to something else: this is the first time that I've seen that .40 Glocks are "dogs." I've never come across someone who told me to steer clear. That is, until today.

If this thread is to go further, we should make citations mandatory.

Oh, for the record (because I'm tired of people dogging Wikipedia): in a study a few years ago (5 now that I found the article):

Quote:

Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Wow. I was here yesterday, and I return today to see that a whole lotta something hit the fan. Wow.

Fact of the matter is, as it appears to me, is that a lot of facts have been tossed around, with some citations, on the 357SIG side, and very little on the non side. This is what kills me about these discussions.

I posted some papers from a physics peer-review website that got no comment from Alaskapopo. I would like to see him pick apart these papers. Using scientific method they found that the 357SIG has potential over the 9mm. The article on evaluating wound characteristics in deer comes with pictures of the wound from a .40SW, along with numbers for 9mm and 357SIG.

As to something else: this is the first time that I've seen that .40 Glocks are "dogs." I've never come across someone who told me to steer clear. That is, until today.

If this thread is to go further, we should make citations mandatory.

Oh, for the record (because I'm tired of people dogging Wikipedia): in a study a few years ago (5 now that I found the article):

The latter contains updated percentages on a One Shot Stop (OSS) according to a method they devised in the paper.

Thank you. I have all of those. Those papers have been thoroughly picked apart and are considered junk science at best by some of the most brilliant minds in the industry. You are living in a house of cards if that is your foundation of understanding.

The Strasbourg goat tests can not be proven to have ever taken place and the M&S OSS data is severely flawed.

Thank you. I have all of those. Those papers have been thoroughly picked apart and are considered junk science at best by some of the most brilliant minds in the industry. You are living in a house of cards if that is your foundation of understanding.

The Strasbourg goat tests can not be proven to have ever taken place and the M&S OSS data is severely flawed.

Would you care to share with me papers that show empirical evidence of this please?

Basic Wound Ballistic Terminal Performance Facts
The last 25 years of modern wound ballistic research has demonstrated yet again what historical reports have always indicated--that there are only two valid methods of incapacitation: one based on psychological factors and the other physiological damage. People are often rapidly psychologically incapacitated by minor wounds that are not immediately physiologically incapacitating. Psychological factors are also the reason people can receive severe, even non-survivable wounds and continue functioning for short periods of time. Up to fifty percent of those individuals rapidly incapacitated by bullet wounds are probably incapacitated for psychological rather than physiological reasons. Psychological incapacitation is an extremely erratic, highly variable, and completely unpredictable human response, independent of any inherent characteristics of a particular projectile.

The degree and rapidity of any physiological incapacitation is determined by the anatomic structures the projectile disrupts and the severity of the tissue damage caused by the bullet. Physiologically, immediate incapacitation or death can only occur when the brain or upper spinal cord is damaged or destroyed. The tactical reality is that in combat, opportunities for military personnel to take precisely aimed shots at the CNS of enemy combatants is rare due to high stress unexpected contact marked by rapid fleeting movements, along with frequent poor visibility on the battlefield including use of cover and concealment. Thus the reduced likelihood of frequent planned CNS targeting in combat conditions. Absent CNS damage, circulatory system collapse from severe disruption of the vital organs and blood vessels in the torso is the only other reliable method of physiological incapacitation from small arms. If the CNS is uninjured, physiological incapacitation is delayed until blood loss is sufficient to deprive the brain of oxygen. Multiple hits may be needed before an individual is physiologically incapacitated. An individual wounded in any area of the body other than the CNS may physiologically be able to continue their actions for a short period of time, even with non-survivable injuries. In a 1992 IWBA Journal paper, Dr. Ken Newgard wrote the following about how blood loss effects incapacitation:

“A 70 kg male has a cardiac output of around 5.5 liters per minute. His blood volume is about 4200 cc. Assuming that his cardiac output can double under stress, his aortic blood flow can reach 11 Liters per minute. If this male had his thoracic aorta totally severed, it would take him 4.6 seconds to lose 20% of his total blood volume. This is the minimum amount of time in which a person could lose 20% of his blood volume from one point of injury. A marginally trained person can fire at a rate of two shots per second. In 4.6 seconds there could easily be 9 shots of return fire before the assailant’s activity is neutralized. Note this analysis does not account for oxygen contained in the blood already perusing the brain that will keep the brain functioning for an even longer period of time.”

Military and LE (law enforcement) personnel are generally trained to shoot at the center of mass, usually the torso, of an aggressive opponent who must be stopped through the use of lethal force. Physiological incapacitation with wounds to the torso is usually the result of circulatory system collapse. More rapid incapacitation may occur with greater tissue disruption. Tissue is damaged through two wounding mechanisms: the tissue in the projectile’s path is permanently crushed and the tissue surrounding the projectile’s path is temporarily stretched. A penetrating projectile physically crushes and destroys tissue as it cuts its path through the body. The space occupied by this pulped and disintegrated tissue is referred to as the permanent cavity. The permanent cavity, or wound track, is quite simply the hole bored by the projectile's passage. Obviously, bullets of greater diameter crush more tissue, forming a larger permanent cavity. The formation of this permanent cavity is consistent and reliable.

The tissue surrounding the permanent cavity is briefly pushed laterally aside as it is centrifugally driven radially outward by the projectile's passage. The empty space normally occupied by the momentarily displaced tissue surrounding the wound track, is called the temporary cavity. The temporary cavity quickly subsides as the elastic recoil of the stretched tissue returns it towards the wound track. The tissue that was stretched by the temporary cavity may be injured and is analogous to an area of blunt trauma surrounding the permanent crush cavity. The degree of injury produced by temporary cavitation is quite variable, erratic, and highly dependent on anatomic and physiologic considerations. Many flexible, elastic soft tissues such as muscle, bowel wall, skin, blood vessels, and empty hollow organs are good energy absorbers and are highly resistant to the blunt trauma and contusion caused by the stretch of temporary cavitation. Inelastic tissues such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder, are highly susceptible to severe permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture due to temporary cavitation insults. Projectiles are traveling at their maximum velocity when they initially strike and then slow as they travel through tissue. In spite of this, the maximum temporary cavity is not always found at the surface where the projectile is at its highest velocity, but often deeper in the tissue after it has slowed considerably. The maximum temporary cavitation is usually coincidental with that of maximum bullet yaw, deformation, or fragmentation, but not necessarily maximum projectile velocity.

All projectiles that penetrate the body can only disrupt tissue by these two wounding mechanisms: the localized crushing of tissue in the bullet's path and the transient stretching of tissue adjacent to the wound track. Projectile wounds differ in the amount and location of crushed and stretched tissue. The relative contribution by each of these mechanisms to any wound depends on the physical characteristics of the projectile, its size, weight, shape, construction, and velocity, penetration depth and the type of tissue with which the projectile interacts. Unlike rifle bullets, handgun bullets, regardless of whether they are fired from pistols or SMG’s, generally only disrupt tissue by the crush mechanism. In addition, temporary cavitation from most handgun bullets does not reliably damage tissue and is not usually a significant mechanism of wounding.

Bullets that may be required to incapacitate aggressors must reliably penetrate a minimum of approximately 10 to 12 inches of tissue in order to ensure disruption of the major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any angle and through excessive adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or intervening anatomic structures, such as a raised arm.

Tissue is a denser medium than air; as the bullets strikes tissue, the increased drag on the projectile overcomes its rotational stabilization and the bullet can yaw. If the bullet yaws, more surface area is in contact with tissue, so it crushes more tissue, creating a larger permanent cavity. When a bullet yaws, it also displaces more of the surrounding tissue, increasing the temporary cavity size. Both the largest permanent and temporary cavities are produced when the bullet is traveling sideways at 90 degrees of yaw, allowing the maximum lateral cross sectional area of the bullet to strike tissue and displace the greatest amount of tissue. Longer and wider bullets have a greater lateral cross sectional area and thus create a larger permanent cavity when they yaw.

Aerodynamic projectiles, such as bullets, cause minimal tissue disturbance when passing point forward through tissue. Deformation destroys the aerodynamic shape of the bullet, shortening its length and increasing its diameter by expanding and flattening the bullet tip in the classic "mushroom" pattern exhibited by deforming jacketed hollow point and jacketed soft point bullets. The larger frontal area of deformed bullets can crush more tissue to increase permanent cavity size and also displace more tissue to increase temporary cavity size. (Note: The Hague Declaration of 1899 prohibits the use of bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body against combatants in international armed conflict; the Hague Declaration does not prohibit the military use of bullets that fragment or because of their design, yaw upon entry into tissue.)

Projectile fragmentation in tissue can also greatly increase the permanent cavity size. When a rifle bullet fragments in tissue, each of the multiple fragments spreads out radially from the main wound track, cutting its own path through tissue. This fragmentation acts synergistically with the stretch of temporary cavitation. The multiply perforated tissue loses its elasticity and is unable to absorb stretching that would ordinarily be tolerated by intact tissue. The temporary cavitation displacement of tissue, which occurs following the passage of the projectile, stretches this weakened tissue and can grossly disrupt its integrity, tearing and detaching pieces of tissue. Note that handgun bullets, regardless of whether they are fired from pistols or SMG’s, do not generally exhibit the fragmentation effects produced by rifle bullets. If handgun bullets do fragment, the bullet fragments are usually found within 1 cm of the permanent cavity; wound severity is usually decreased by the fragmentation since the bullet mass is reduced, causing a smaller permanent crush cavity.

Would you care to share with me papers that show empirical evidence of this please?

By definition, empirical means direct observation or experience. Since I was not at the goat tests (nor was anyone else), with Courtney (nor was anyone else), or with M&S, I can not provide the evidence you seek.

I can however, provide (with equal validity as yours) evidence to the contrary. The burden is on you to do the research and formulate your own conclusions using the resources available to you.

Ironically, all of the goat test garbage is disappearing from Internet servers. I have no way of providing you hard copies, but at least one conclusion states:

Dr. Martin Fackler, IWBA president, reviews the authorless "Strasbourg Tests," a purported study of the reaction of several hundred live unanesthetized "human-sized" goats that were allegedly shot to test the "one-shot stopping power" of various handgun cartridges. Fackler explains the many incongruities, inconsistencies and absurdities which lead him (and most other wound ballistics experts) to conclude that the "Strasbourg Tests" are a hoax.

Fackler concludes: "The only people who believe the 'Strasbourg Tests' are real are the usual crowd of crackpot 'magic' bullet believers and the pathetically incompetent editors of consumer gun magazines like Guns & Ammo."

Ah. I've alraedy read most of what the Firearms Tactical Institute has to say about M&S. It reads as an op-ed column. I've already formed my own conclusions, and it seems like a very biased site. They do, however, advocate sending the M&S book to an unbiased source, and I applaud them for this. Thank you for providing the links. I wish more people could.

I will concede on the goat tests: I won't say they didn't happen, but I am also skeptical because I cannot find the information myself, nor the data sets. The paper referenced in the Courtney et al. papers shows no author, which piques my alarm.

I would post another paper that I found on arxiv.org, but it strikes me that Courtney et al. seem to have no validity to you. Am I mistaken on this?

All in all, I don't care to press it any further. I contributed what I could, and I'll leave it at that rather than conjecture on things that are now outside my area of knowledge.

It is frustrating, because there really is a lack of evidence regarding one caliber over the other. I don't totally buy into gelatin tests as a panache for handgun testing. It's a start, of course, but it doesn't take hydrodynamics into account at all. Speaking of, what is your opinion on pressure wave theory?

Also, in regards to the method of testing handguns in deer...what do you think of this? And is there a rebuttal against this paper?

Interesting that this thread seems to be back on a civil track. Your skepticism of the validity of ballistic gelatin is understandable. However, there does not appear to be a validated alternative. It's not perfect, and I think authors like Fackler and Wolberg understood that; but it's all we have to work with. You can't shoot animals for ballistic testing purposes without raising a stink and you certainly can't shoot people. The Wolberg paper did nothing but show that the AVERAGE penetration was about the same in tissue and gelatin, and he freely acknowledged that there was a lot more variability in tissue.

The thing that's important about the work of Fackler and the rest is their focus on what is testable and repeatable based on physiologic facts.

Courtney may be able to demonstrate that Ballistic pressure waves can cause brain injury but there is a wealth of data that shows that it is not a reliable or repeatable phenomenon. I'd be willing to accept that injury can occur in this manner and that it is more likely to occur with a more energetic round, etc., but I don't think anyone could ever create a pistol or rifle round that is guaranteed to stop as a result.

In short, BPW may exist but you can't count on it because it's effects are unpredictable.